One of my favorite Youtuber got banned due to "3rd party claims." I have no idea why they would attack people, since he gave the copyright to the artist and recording studios, he wasn't claiming that it was his. I'm tired of these damn bullies.

It's not enough to "give the copyright to the artist." They own it, they get to decide how it is used. They are not bullies...it's called respecting what other people OWN. If they don't want some third party guy posting it on youtube...that is their right.

Don't like it? Work to change the law. Better have deep pockets for that effort, though.

Now, it is my understanding that youtube does not "ban" users on first offenses or in situations that the infraction seems iffy on intent to do harm. I would suspect there is more to this than either you know or you are telling.

One of my favorite Youtuber got banned due to "3rd party claims." I have no idea why they would attack people, since he gave the copyright to the artist and recording studios, he wasn't claiming that it was his. I'm tired of these damn bullies.

It's not enough to "give the copyright to the artist." They own it, they get to decide how it is used. They are not bullies...it's called respecting what other people OWN. If they don't want some third party guy posting it on youtube...that is their right.

Don't like it? Work to change the law. Better have deep pockets for that effort, though.

Now, it is my understanding that youtube does not "ban" users on first offenses or in situations that the infraction seems iffy on intent to do harm. I would suspect there is more to this than either you know or you are telling.

It's incredible to me how people can think they can reproduce people's copyrighted material on YouTube and put up a notice saying "no copyright infringement intended" and think that they're OK. Kids growing up today literally have no understanding of what a copyright is. (Hint: it's the exclusive legal right to make copies!)

Logged

"The basic plot is that Donna Speir and Hope Marie Carlton, the two undercover DEA agent Playboy Playmates from the last movie, are still running around in jungle shorts, cowboy boots and spaghetti strap T-shirts, firing their machine guns at drug smugglers, Filipino communist guerrillas, and corrupt federal agents while their two friends, Lisa London and Miss May 1984 Patty Duffek, lounge around the pool a lot and talk on speaker phones that look like fax machines."-Joe Bob on SAVAGE BEACH

One of my favorite Youtuber got banned due to "3rd party claims." I have no idea why they would attack people, since he gave the copyright to the artist and recording studios, he wasn't claiming that it was his. I'm tired of these damn bullies.

It's not enough to "give the copyright to the artist." They own it, they get to decide how it is used. They are not bullies...it's called respecting what other people OWN. If they don't want some third party guy posting it on youtube...that is their right.

Don't like it? Work to change the law. Better have deep pockets for that effort, though.

Now, it is my understanding that youtube does not "ban" users on first offenses or in situations that the infraction seems iffy on intent to do harm. I would suspect there is more to this than either you know or you are telling.

It's incredible to me how people can think they can reproduce people's copyrighted material on YouTube and put up a notice saying "no copyright infringement intended" and think that they're OK. Kids growing up today literally have no understanding of what a copyright is. (Hint: it's the exclusive legal right to make copies!)

You two obviously don't see it the way I do- You both see it as they are stealing music, I see it as a way to listen to it to see if I would like it and then I will buy it. If you say b.s. then you would be wasting your time trying to convince me.

You two obviously don't see it the way I do- You both see it as they are stealing music, I see it as a way to listen to it to see if I would like it and then I will buy it. If you say b.s. then you would be wasting your time trying to convince me.

What you are missing is that is it not your decision to make. The other guy, the one that produced it, owns the music. It's all HIS decision, not matter what you think about it.

I've used music youtube videos that I produced. I'm in a 'derivative work' Fair Use limbo ... on the edge of the lines in some cases. I could well be asked to take them down, and I would respect that. These are home movies and not really intended for mass consumption.

I am not reproducing the songs and distributing them. Fine line? Perhaps. Maybe I'm just as much "in the wrong." But I'm up front about what I'm doing, I respect youtube ToS on the use of creative content and more importantly than that...I respect the content owner's right to ask me to stop without complaining about it.

I may never convince you, that's true. But you are going to have a sad time in this world if you really think the world is (and should) operate the way you want it to and according to your rules - especially when those rules are completely self-serving.

El Misfit, my issue isn't even really YouTubers stances on copyright law---it's that they don't even bother to try to understand the basic concept. People continually infringe copyrights and then post a "disclaimer" saying "no copyright infringement intended." Wikipedia is just a click away, why assume you understand what copyright infringement means without even bothering to look it up?

Logged

"The basic plot is that Donna Speir and Hope Marie Carlton, the two undercover DEA agent Playboy Playmates from the last movie, are still running around in jungle shorts, cowboy boots and spaghetti strap T-shirts, firing their machine guns at drug smugglers, Filipino communist guerrillas, and corrupt federal agents while their two friends, Lisa London and Miss May 1984 Patty Duffek, lounge around the pool a lot and talk on speaker phones that look like fax machines."-Joe Bob on SAVAGE BEACH

El Misfit, my issue isn't even really YouTubers stances on copyright law---it's that they don't even bother to try to understand the basic concept. People continually infringe copyrights and then post a "disclaimer" saying "no copyright infringement intended." Wikipedia is just a click away, why assume you understand what copyright infringement means without even bothering to look it up?

Stuff like that makes me more confused in life, since it isn't easily explained. I ask my parents and it does little to make me understand it.

Stuff like that makes me more confused in life, since it isn't easily explained. I ask my parents and it does little to make me understand it.

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

If you don't understand something like a law, ignoring it is not the right answer. Seeking understanding is.

In terms of details, copyright is extremely confusing. There are lawyers that specialize in copyright law and a lot of THEM say it's hard to get. If you don't understand it, you are in good company. Most people don't, it seems.

But, that's the details. The basic concept is rather simple, really.

When someone creates something...a photograph, painting, piece of music, short story, whatever, that 'creation' is their "Intellectual Property." They own it, and have complete and total control on how it is, well, copied (and distributed, etc).

Let's say you own a car. You have the keys and the right to lock the car and deny others the use of your car. I cannot (legally) come get into your car, with a key or otherwise, and go for a joy ride. You own it; you control it. If I used your car against your will or without your knowledge, you could seek damages from me (use of gasoline, damage repair, etc) and/or seek criminal prosecution.

You seem reluctant to consider copying music "theft," but since the creation is defined as a form of property, violation of copyright is exactly that....theft. It's not theft of a tangible thing, like a car, but it is theft intellectual property. I like to think of it as theft of control.

A lot of the problems with understanding it is that there are cases where intellectual property CAN be used or copied. It's like saying, "Taking El Misfit's car is okay, but just if you take it to the grocery store. Well, not if the store is more than 5 miles away, or if it's raining. Or, maybe when it is raining is okay so long as ..." and a whole bunch of grey areas exist.

There are also other ways it gets tricky, but the gist is, as Rev said, he who owns the Copyright has the (exclusive) Right to Copy.

Something from my view re copyright: I can't release any footage or films here at the NFVSA for use in documentaries etc until the rights issues have been cleared and all royalties have been paid to the rights holder. All of our newsreels dating back to 1919 are owned by the SA Broadcasting Company (SABC) and the clients have to clear it with them first before they can use the footage.

I get a lot of people asking me to 'just put that on a DVD for me' but I can't and I won't. Can't because we have no film to video transfer facilities and won't because I would lose my job if I did that.

Logged

Questions fell but no one stopped to listenThat eternity was just a dawn awayAnd the rest was sure to comeLeaves, caught in winter's ice

My fridge gave out yesterday over night. There was a ton of water that soaked through to the celiing tiles in the basement that were beneath it. Everything in that big fridge remarkably fit in a minifridge in the basement. A grand later a new fridge will be arriving tomorrow.

Logged

Kubrick, Nolan, Hitchcock, Tarantino, Wan - the elite

I believe in the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

I simply can not reproduce it to make a profit while still giving Cracked credit without making some sort of deal with them first. That is because as part of my user agreement is that I give all my rights and things of those nature to them regarding the contents of the articles and I'd be breaking the law and could be sued.

In the past they have come to terms with people to reproduce that content after agreeing to terms.

Logged

Kubrick, Nolan, Hitchcock, Tarantino, Wan - the elite

I believe in the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

I am sick to death of publishing houses that want ME to pay THEM to publish my book! I want someone to pay ME!!!!!!

Don't give up hope, Indy. We, on this board, know how talented you are, and there's someone out there who wants your book. A couple of thoughts, have you thought about getting an agent to shop your book around to the publishers? And have you thought of the university presses here in Texas?